## Facts

- Rhode Island enacted P.L. 1973, ch. 98 to call a 1973 constitutional convention, limiting the convention’s agenda to four subject areas, setting an end date, providing for no delegate compensation, and scheduling a special election for any approved amendments.
- Voters approved holding the convention for the stated “sole and limited purpose,” and Martin S. Malinou was elected as a delegate.
- Malinou filed a Superior Court declaratory judgment action against the State, its general officers, and convention officials, seeking (1) a declaration invalidating statutory limits on the convention’s agenda and duration and (2) “reasonable compensation” for his delegate service and for his legal work in the litigation.
- The Superior Court heard and decided the case while the convention was still in session, concluding that the convention’s actual conduct reflected disregard of the alleged restrictions.
- The record indicated the convention considered many proposals, including proposals outside the four specified areas, and there was no showing that proposals were rejected as out of order for exceeding the call.
- The Superior Court refused declaratory relief on standing, immunity, and prematurity/advisory-opinion grounds, and denied compensation based on estoppel and immunity.
- Malinou appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether a declaratory judgment challenging statutory limits on a constitutional convention was justiciable or would amount to an impermissible advisory opinion where no concrete injury was shown.
2. Whether Malinou, as a delegate and citizen, showed a present, redressable injury sufficient for standing and for declaratory relief.
3. Whether Malinou could recover compensation as a convention delegate despite a statute providing delegates would receive no compensation.
4. Whether Malinou could recover attorney’s fees for his own legal work absent a statutory basis or a recognized exception to the American Rule.

## Decision

- The Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court’s judgment.
- Declaratory relief was denied because resolving the validity of the statutory limits would be advisory in character given the absence of demonstrated, concrete injury and the convention’s actual practice.
- Malinou was denied compensation as a delegate where the governing legislation expressly provided for unpaid service and he sought and accepted election under that scheme.
- Malinou was denied attorney’s fees because no recognized basis for fee shifting applied and no judicial relief was granted that could support an equitable award.
- Monetary relief remained barred by governmental immunity as applied by the trial court.

## Legal Principles

- Declaratory judgment is unavailable when the court’s ruling would function as a general advisory opinion rather than resolve a concrete dispute affecting the parties’ legal rights.
- A plaintiff must show a present, non-speculative, redressable injury; alleged “chilling” effects are insufficient where actual events show no meaningful restraint.
- Where a statute expressly provides that public service will be uncompensated and the plaintiff voluntarily assumes the position with knowledge of that condition, later claims for compensation are barred.
- Attorney’s fees are not awarded absent statutory authorization or a recognized equitable exception to the American Rule; unsuccessful or non-merits declaratory litigation does not justify fee shifting.

## Conclusion

The court refused to decide broad constitutional questions about legislative limits on a constitutional convention because doing so would have been advisory in the absence of concrete injury, and it upheld denial of both delegate compensation and attorney’s fees under the statute, fee-shifting rules, and governmental immunity principles.


Malinou v. Powers, 333 A.2d 420 (R.I. 1975)